Comparing Expressed and Revealed Preferences for Risk Reduction: Different Hazards and Question Frames

Studies often note the wide differences that exist in costs per death avoided across U.S. federal programs and regulatory contexts. This paper explores two new, related explanations for these differences. First, it argues that the patterns of revealed preferences (public allocations) may be related to public values, which are measured here through subjects' expressed preference responses to a contingent valuation survey regarding risk reduction. Subjects' expressed values are compared to actual (and proposed) costs of safety regulations for a similar set of hazards. We discover strong congruence in the ranking of expressed values and actual values. Second, the paper presents the results of a subsequent survey that investigates why the patterns observed in the first survey might occur. It suggests that one reason for the observed similarities between revealed and expressed preferences may be in how choices are framed. The paper hypothesizes that both subjects and decision makers may frame valuation decisions in the same way: as percentage changes from the reference point provided by the base rate of deaths for that hazard.